Microfinance initiawwy had a wimited definition - de provision of microwoans to poor entrepreneurs and smaww businesses wacking access to banking and rewated services. The two main mechanisms for de dewivery of financiaw services to such cwients were: (1) rewationship-based banking for individuaw entrepreneurs and smaww businesses; and (2) group-based modews, where severaw entrepreneurs come togeder to appwy for woans and oder services as a group.

Over time, microfinance has emerged as a warger movement whose object is "a worwd in which as everyone, especiawwy de poor and sociawwy marginawized peopwe and househowds have access to a wide range of affordabwe, high qwawity financiaw products and services, incwuding not just credit but awso savings, insurance, payment services, and fund transfers."[1] Many of dose who promote microfinance generawwy bewieve dat such access wiww hewp poor peopwe out of poverty, incwuding participants in de Microcredit Summit Campaign. For many, microfinance is a way to promote economic devewopment, empwoyment and growf drough de support of micro-entrepreneurs and smaww businesses; for oders it is a way for poor to manage deir finances more effectivewy and take advantage of economic opportunities whiwe managing de risks. The terms have evowved - from micro-credit to micro-finance, and now 'financiaw incwusion'.

Microfinance is a broad category of services, which incwudes microcredit. Microcredit is onwy about provision of credit services to poor cwients; onwy one of de aspects of [(microfinance)], and de two are often confused. Critics often point to some of de iwws of micro-credit dat can create indebtedness. Due to diverse contexts in which microfinance operates, and de broad range of microfinance services, it is neider possibwe nor wise to have a generawized view of impacts Microfinance may create. Many studies have tried to assess its impacts.[2] Proponents often cwaim dat microfinance wifts peopwe out of poverty, but de evidence is mixed. What it does do, however, is to enhance financiaw incwusion.

In devewoping economies and particuwarwy in ruraw areas, many activities dat wouwd be cwassified in de devewoped worwd as financiaw are not monetized: dat is, money is not used to carry dem out. This is often de case when peopwe need de services money can provide but do not have dispensabwe funds reqwired for dose services, forcing dem to revert to oder means of acqwiring dem. In deir book The Poor and Their Money, Stuart Ruderford and Sukhwinder Arora cite severaw types of needs:

Peopwe find creative and often cowwaborative ways to meet dese needs, primariwy drough creating and exchanging different forms of non-cash vawue. Common substitutes for cash vary from country to country but typicawwy incwude wivestock, grains, jewewry and precious metaws. As Marguerite Robinson describes in The Micro finance Revowution, de 1980s demonstrated dat "micro finance couwd provide warge-scawe outreach profitabwy," and in de 1990s, "micro finance began to devewop as an industry" (2001, p. 54). In de 2000s, de micro finance industry's objective is to satisfy de unmet demand on a much warger scawe, and to pway a rowe in reducing poverty. Whiwe much progress has been made in devewoping a viabwe, commerciaw micro finance sector in de wast few decades, severaw issues remain dat need to be addressed before de industry wiww be abwe to satisfy massive worwdwide demand. The obstacwes or chawwenges to buiwding a sound commerciaw micro finance industry incwude:

Need for more dissemination and adoption of ruraw, agricuwturaw micro finance medodowogies

Members wack of cowwateraw to secure a woan

Microfinance is de proper toow to reduce income ineqwawity, awwowing citizens from wower socio-economicaw cwasses to participate in de economy. Moreover, its invowvement has shown to wead to a downward trend in income ineqwawity (Hermes, 2014).[4]

Ruderford argues dat de basic probwem dat poor peopwe face as money managers is to gader a 'usefuwwy warge' amount of money. Buiwding a new home may invowve saving and protecting diverse buiwding materiaws for years untiw enough are avaiwabwe to proceed wif construction, uh-hah-hah-hah. Chiwdren’s schoowing may be funded by buying chickens and raising dem for sawe as needed for expenses, uniforms, bribes, etc. Because aww de vawue is accumuwated before it is needed, dis money management strategy is referred to as 'saving up'.(Hermes, 2014).[5]

Often, peopwe don't have enough money when dey face a need, so dey borrow. A poor famiwy might borrow from rewatives to buy wand, from a moneywender to buy rice, or from a microfinance institution to buy a sewing machine. Since dese woans must be repaid by saving after de cost is incurred, Ruderford cawws dis 'saving down'. Ruderford's point is dat microcredit is addressing onwy hawf de probwem, and arguabwy de wess important hawf: poor peopwe borrow to hewp dem save and accumuwate assets. Microcredit institutions shouwd fund deir woans drough savings accounts dat hewp poor peopwe manage deir myriad risks.[citation needed]

Saving down

Most needs are met drough a mix of saving and credit. A benchmark impact assessment of Grameen Bank and two oder warge microfinance institutions in Bangwadesh found dat for every $1 dey were wending to cwients to finance ruraw non-farm micro-enterprise, about $2.50 came from oder sources, mostwy deir cwients' savings.[6] This parawwews de experience in de West, in which famiwy businesses are funded mostwy from savings, especiawwy during start-up.

Recent studies have awso shown dat informaw medods of saving are unsafe. For exampwe, a study by Wright and Mutesasira in Uganda concwuded dat "dose wif no option but to save in de informaw sector are awmost bound to wose some money—probabwy around one qwarter of what dey save dere."[7]

The work of Ruderford, Wright and oders has caused practitioners to reconsider a key aspect of de microcredit paradigm: dat poor peopwe get out of poverty by borrowing, buiwding microenterprises and increasing deir income. The new paradigm pwaces more attention on de efforts of poor peopwe to reduce deir many vuwnerabiwities by keeping more of what dey earn and buiwding up deir assets. Whiwe dey need woans, dey may find it as usefuw to borrow for consumption as for microenterprise. A safe, fwexibwe pwace to save money and widdraw it when needed is awso essentiaw for managing househowd and famiwy risk.[citation needed]

The microfinance project of "saving up" is exempwified in de swums of de souf-eastern city of Vijayawada, India. This microfinance project functions as an unofficiaw banking system where Jyodi, a "deposit cowwector", cowwects money from swum dwewwers, mostwy women, in order for dem to accumuwate savings. Jyodi does her rounds droughout de city, cowwecting Rs5 a day from peopwe in de swums for 220 days, however not awways 220 days in a row since dese women do not awways have de funds avaiwabwe to put dem into savings. They uwtimatewy end up wif Rs1000 at de end of de process. However, dere are some issues wif dis microfinance saving program. One of de issues is dat whiwe saving, cwients are actuawwy wosing part of deir savings. Jyodi takes interest from each cwient—about 20 out of every 220 payments, or Rs100 out of 1,100 or 8%. When dese swum dwewwers find someone dey trust, dey are wiwwing to pay up to 30% to someone to safewy cowwect and keep deir savings. There is awso de risk of entrusting deir savings to unwicensed, informaw, peripatetic cowwectors. However, de swum dwewwers are wiwwing to accept dis risk because dey are unabwe to save at home, and unabwe to use de remote and unfriendwy banks in deir country. This microfinance project awso has many benefits, such as empowering women and giving parents de abiwity to save money for deir chiwdren’s education, uh-hah-hah-hah. This specific microfinance project is an exampwe of de benefits and wimitations of de "saving up" project (Ruderford, 2009).

The microfinance project of "saving drough" is shown in Nairobi, Kenya which incwudes a Rotating Savings and Credit Associations or ROSCAs initiative. This is a smaww scawe exampwe, however Ruderford (2009) describes a woman he met in Nairobi and studied her ROSCA. Everyday 15 women wouwd save 100 shiwwings so dere wouwd be a wump sum of 1,500 shiwwings and everyday 1 of de 15 women wouwd receive dat wump sum. This wouwd continue for 15 days and anoder woman widin dis group wouwd receive de wump sum. At de end of de 15 days a new cycwe wouwd start. This ROSCA initiative is different from de "saving up" exampwe above because dere are no interest rates affiwiated wif de ROSCA, additionawwy everyone receives back what dey put forf. This initiative reqwires trust and sociaw capitaw networks in order to work, so often dese ROSCAs incwude peopwe who know each oder and have reciprocity. The ROSCA awwows for marginawized groups to receive a wump sum at one time in order to pay or save for specific needs dey have.

This shop in Souf Sudan was opened using money borrowed from de Finance Sudan Limited (FSL) Program. This program was estabwished in 2006 as one of de onwy microfinance wenders in de country.

One of de principaw chawwenges of microfinance is providing smaww woans at an affordabwe cost. The gwobaw average interest and fee rate is estimated at 37%, wif rates reaching as high as 70% in some markets.[8] The reason for de high interest rates is not primariwy cost of capitaw. Indeed, de wocaw microfinance organizations dat receive zero-interest woan capitaw from de onwine microwending pwatform Kiva charge average interest and fee rates of 35.21%.[9] Rader, de main reason for de high cost of microfinance woans is de high transaction cost of traditionaw microfinance operations rewative to woan size.[10]

Microfinance practitioners have wong argued dat such high interest rates are simpwy unavoidabwe, because de cost of making each woan cannot be reduced bewow a certain wevew whiwe stiww awwowing de wender to cover costs such as offices and staff sawaries. For exampwe, in Sub-Saharan Africa credit risk for microfinance institutes is very high, because customers need years to improve deir wivewihood and face many chawwenges during dis time. Financiaw institutes often do not even have a system to check de person's identity. Additionawwy dey are unabwe to design new products and enwarge deir business to reduce de risk.[11] The resuwt is dat de traditionaw approach to microfinance has made onwy wimited progress in resowving de probwem it purports to address: dat de worwd's poorest peopwe pay de worwd's highest cost for smaww business growf capitaw. The high costs of traditionaw microfinance woans wimit deir effectiveness as a poverty-fighting toow. Offering woans at interest and fee rates of 37% mean dat borrowers who do not manage to earn at weast a 37% rate of return may actuawwy end up poorer as a resuwt of accepting de woans.[12]

Exampwe of a woan contract, using fwat rate cawcuwation, from ruraw Cambodia. Loan is for 400,000 riews at 4% fwat (16,000 riews) interest per monf.

According to a recent survey of microfinance borrowers in Ghana pubwished by de Center for Financiaw Incwusion, more dan one-dird of borrowers surveyed reported struggwing to repay deir woans. Some resorted to measures such as reducing deir food intake or taking chiwdren out of schoow in order to repay microfinance debts dat had not proven sufficientwy profitabwe.[citation needed]

In recent years, de microfinance industry has shifted its focus from de objective of increasing de vowume of wending capitaw avaiwabwe, to address de chawwenge of providing microfinance woans more affordabwy. Microfinance anawyst David Roodman contends dat, in mature markets, de average interest and fee rates charged by microfinance institutions tend to faww over time.[13][14] However, gwobaw average interest rates for microfinance woans are stiww weww above 30%.

The answer to providing microfinance services at an affordabwe cost may wie in redinking one of de fundamentaw assumptions underwying microfinance: dat microfinance borrowers need extensive monitoring and interaction wif woan officers in order to benefit from and repay deir woans. The P2P microwending service Zidisha is based on dis premise, faciwitating direct interaction between individuaw wenders and borrowers via an internet community rader dan physicaw offices. Zidisha has managed to bring de cost of microwoans to bewow 10% for borrowers, incwuding interest which is paid out to wenders. However, it remains to be seen wheder such radicaw awternative modews can reach de scawe necessary to compete wif traditionaw microfinance programs.[15]

Practitioners and donors from de charitabwe side of microfinance freqwentwy argue for restricting microcredit to woans for productive purposes—such as to start or expand a microenterprise. Those from de private-sector side respond dat, because money is fungibwe, such a restriction is impossibwe to enforce, and dat in any case it shouwd not be up to rich peopwe to determine how poor peopwe use deir money[citation needed].

These goats are being raised by Rwandan women as part of a farm cooperative funded by microfinance.

There has been a wong-standing debate over de sharpness of de trade-off between 'outreach' (de abiwity of a microfinance institution to reach poorer and more remote peopwe) and its 'sustainabiwity' (its abiwity to cover its operating costs—and possibwy awso its costs of serving new cwients—from its operating revenues). Awdough it is generawwy agreed dat microfinance practitioners shouwd seek to bawance dese goaws to some extent, dere are a wide variety of strategies, ranging from de minimawist profit-orientation of BancoSow in Bowivia to de highwy integrated not-for-profit orientation of BRAC in Bangwadesh. This is true not onwy for individuaw institutions, but awso for governments engaged in devewoping nationaw microfinance systems. BRAC was ranked de number one NGO in de worwd in 2015 and 2016 by de Geneva-based NGO Advisor.[16][17]

Microfinance generawwy agree dat women shouwd be de primary focus of service dewivery. Evidence shows dat dey are wess wikewy to defauwt on deir woans dan men, uh-hah-hah-hah. Industry data from 2006 for 704 MFIs reaching 52 miwwion borrowers incwudes MFIs using de sowidarity wending medodowogy (99.3% femawe cwients) and MFIs using individuaw wending (51% femawe cwients). The dewinqwency rate for sowidarity wending was 0.9% after 30 days (individuaw wending—3.1%), whiwe 0.3% of woans were written off (individuaw wending—0.9%).[18] Because operating margins become tighter de smawwer de woans dewivered, many MFIs consider de risk of wending to men to be too high. This focus on women is qwestioned sometimes, however a recent study of microenterpreneurs from Sri Lanka pubwished by de Worwd Bank found dat de return on capitaw for mawe-owned businesses (hawf of de sampwe) averaged 11%, whereas de return for women-owned businesses was 0% or swightwy negative.[19]

Microfinance's emphasis on femawe-oriented wending is de subject of controversy, as it is cwaimed dat microfinance improves de status of women drough an awweviation of poverty. It is argued dat by providing women wif initiaw capitaw, dey wiww be abwe to support demsewves independent of men, in a manner which wouwd encourage sustainabwe growf of enterprise and eventuaw sewf-sufficiency. This cwaim has yet to be proven in any substantiaw form. Moreover, de attraction of women as a potentiaw investment base is precisewy because dey are constrained by socio-cuwturaw norms regarding such concepts of obedience, famiwiaw duty, househowd maintenance and passivity.[20] The resuwt of dese norms is dat whiwe micro-wending may enabwe women to improve deir daiwy subsistence to a more steady pace, dey wiww not be abwe to engage in market-oriented business practice beyond a wimited scope of wow-skiwwed, wow-earning, informaw work.[21] Part of dis is a wack of permissivity in de society; part a refwection of de added burdens of househowd maintenance dat women shouwder awone as a resuwt of microfinanciaw empowerment; and part a wack of training and education surrounding gendered conceptions of economics. In particuwar, de shift in norms such dat women continue to be responsibwe for aww de domestic private sphere wabour as weww as undertaking pubwic economic support for deir famiwies, independent of mawe aid increases rader dan decreases burdens on awready wimited persons.

Women of Mawawi posing wif deir savings box

If dere were to be an exchange of wabour, or if women's income were suppwementaw rader dan essentiaw to househowd maintenance, dere might be some truf to cwaims of estabwishing wong-term businesses; however when so constrained it is impossibwe for women to do more dan pay off a current woan onwy to take on anoder in a cycwic pattern which is beneficiaw to de financier but hardwy to de borrower. This gender essentiawizing crosses over from institutionawized wenders such as de Grameen Bank into interpersonaw direct wending drough charitabwe crowd-funding operations, such as Kiva. More recentwy, de popuwarity of non-profit gwobaw onwine wending has grown, suggesting dat a redress of gender norms might be instituted drough individuaw sewection fomented by de processes of such programs, but de reawity is as yet uncertain, uh-hah-hah-hah. Studies have noted dat de wikewihood of wending to women, individuawwy or in groups, is 38% higher dan rates of wending to men, uh-hah-hah-hah.[22]

This is awso due to a generaw trend for interpersonaw microfinance rewations to be conducted on grounds of simiwarity and internaw/externaw recognition: wenders want to see someding famiwiar, someding supportabwe in potentiaw borrowers, so an emphasis on famiwy, goaws of education and heawf, and a commitment to community aww achieve positive resuwts from prospective financiers.[23] Unfortunatewy, dese wabews disproportionatewy awign wif women rader dan men, particuwarwy in de devewoping worwd. The resuwt is dat microfinance continues to rewy on restrictive gender norms rader dan seek to subvert dem drough economic redress in terms of foundation change: training, business management and financiaw education are aww ewements which might be incwuded in parameters of femawe-aimed woans and untiw dey are de fundamentaw reawity of women as a disadvantaged section of societies in devewoping states wiww go untested.

Microfinancing produces many benefits for poverty stricken and wow-income househowds. One of de benefits is dat it is very accessibwe. Banks today simpwy won’t extend woans to dose wif wittwe to no assets, and generawwy don’t engage in smaww size woans typicawwy associated wif microfinancing. Through microfinancing smaww woans are produced and accessibwe. Microfinancing is based on de phiwosophy dat even smaww amounts of credit can hewp end de cycwe of poverty. Anoder benefit produced from de microfinancing initiative is dat it presents opportunities, such as extending education and jobs. Famiwies receiving microfinancing are wess wikewy to puww deir chiwdren out of schoow for economic reasons. As weww, in rewation to empwoyment, peopwe are more wikewy to open smaww businesses dat wiww aid de creation of new jobs. Overaww, de benefits outwine dat de microfinancing initiative is set out to improve de standard of wiving amongst impoverished communities (Ruderford, 2009).

There are awso many sociaw and financiaw chawwenges for microfinance initiatives. For exampwe, more articuwate and better-off community members may cheat poorer or wess-educated neighbours. This may occur intentionawwy or inadvertentwy drough woosewy run organizations. As a resuwt, many microfinance initiatives reqwire a warge amount of sociaw capitaw or trust in order to work effectivewy. The abiwity of poorer peopwe to save may awso fwuctuate over time as unexpected costs may take priority which couwd resuwt in dem being abwe to save wittwe or noding some weeks. Rates of infwation may cause funds to wose deir vawue, dus financiawwy harming de saver and not benefiting de cowwector (Ruderford, 2009).

Over de past centuries, practicaw visionaries, from de Franciscan monks who founded de community-oriented pawnshops of de 15f century to de founders of de Europeancredit union movement in de 19f century (such as Friedrich Wiwhewm Raiffeisen) and de founders of de microcredit movement in de 1970s (such as Muhammad Yunus and Aw Whittaker), have tested practices and buiwt institutions designed to bring de kinds of opportunities and risk-management toows dat financiaw services can provide to de doorsteps of poor peopwe.[24] Whiwe de success of de Grameen Bank (which now serves over 7 miwwion poor Bangwadeshi women) has inspired de worwd,[citation needed] it has proved difficuwt to repwicate dis success. In nations wif wower popuwation densities, meeting de operating costs of a retaiw branch by serving nearby customers has proven considerabwy more chawwenging. Hans Dieter Seibew, board member of de European Microfinance Pwatform, is in favour of de group modew. This particuwar modew (used by many Microfinance institutions) makes financiaw sense, he says, because it reduces transaction costs. Microfinance programmes awso need to be based on wocaw funds.[25]

The history of microfinancing can be traced back as far as de middwe of de 1800s, when de deorist Lysander Spooner was writing about de benefits of smaww credits to entrepreneurs and farmers as a way of getting de peopwe out of poverty. Independentwy of Spooner, Friedrich Wiwhewm Raiffeisen founded de first cooperative wending banks to support farmers in ruraw Germany.[26]

The modern use of de expression "microfinancing" has roots in de 1970s when organizations, such as Grameen Bank of Bangwadesh wif de microfinance pioneer Muhammad Yunus, were starting and shaping de modern industry of microfinancing. Anoder pioneer in dis sector is Akhtar Hameed Khan, uh-hah-hah-hah.

A group of Indian women have assembwed to make bamboo products dat dey intend to reseww.

Poor peopwe borrow from informaw moneywenders and save wif informaw cowwectors. They receive woans and grants from charities. They buy insurance from state-owned companies. They receive funds transfers drough formaw or informaw remittance networks. It is not easy to distinguish microfinance from simiwar activities. It couwd be cwaimed dat a government dat orders state banks to open deposit accounts for poor consumers, or a moneywender dat engages in usury, or a charity dat runs a heifer poow are engaged in microfinance. Ensuring financiaw services to poor peopwe is best done by expanding de number of financiaw institutions avaiwabwe to dem, as weww as by strengdening de capacity of dose institutions. In recent years dere has awso been increasing emphasis on expanding de diversity of institutions, since different institutions serve different needs.

Some principwes dat summarize a century and a hawf of devewopment practice were encapsuwated in 2004 by CGAP and endorsed by de Group of Eight weaders at de G8 Summit on June 10, 2004:[24]

Microfinance is considered a toow for socio-economic devewopment, and can be cwearwy distinguished from charity. Famiwies who are destitute, or so poor dey are unwikewy to be abwe to generate de cash fwow reqwired to repay a woan, shouwd be recipients of charity. Oders are best served by financiaw institutions.

No systematic effort to map de distribution of microfinance has yet been undertaken, uh-hah-hah-hah. A benchmark was estabwished by an anawysis of 'awternative financiaw institutions' in de devewoping worwd in 2004.[29] The audors counted approximatewy 665 miwwion cwient accounts at over 3,000 institutions dat are serving peopwe who are poorer dan dose served by de commerciaw banks. Of dese accounts, 120 miwwion were wif institutions normawwy understood to practice microfinance. Refwecting de diverse historicaw roots of de movement, however, dey awso incwuded postaw savings banks (318 miwwion accounts), state agricuwturaw and devewopment banks (172 miwwion accounts), financiaw cooperatives and credit unions (35 miwwion accounts) and speciawized ruraw banks (19 miwwion accounts).

Regionawwy, de highest concentration of dese accounts was in India (188 miwwion accounts representing 18% of de totaw nationaw popuwation). The wowest concentrations were in Latin America and de Caribbean (14 miwwion accounts representing 3% of de totaw popuwation) and Africa (27 miwwion accounts representing 4% of de totaw popuwation, wif de highest rate of penetration in West Africa, and de highest growf rate in Eastern and Soudern Africa [30] ). Considering dat most bank cwients in de devewoped worwd need severaw active accounts to keep deir affairs in order, dese figures indicate dat de task de microfinance movement has set for itsewf is stiww very far from finished.

By type of service, "savings accounts in awternative finance institutions outnumber woans by about four to one. This is a worwdwide pattern dat does not vary much by region, uh-hah-hah-hah."[31]

An important source of detaiwed data on sewected microfinance institutions is de MicroBanking Buwwetin, which is pubwished by Microfinance Information Exchange. At de end of 2009, it was tracking 1,084 MFIs dat were serving 74 miwwion borrowers ($38 biwwion in outstanding woans) and 67 miwwion savers ($23 biwwion in deposits).[32]

Anoder source of information regarding de environment of microfinance is de Gwobaw Microscope on de Microfinance Business Environment,[33] prepared by de Economist Intewwigence Unit (EIU), de Inter-American Devewopment Bank, and oders. The 2011 report contains information on de environment of microfinance in 55 countries among two categories, Reguwatory Framework and de Supporting Institutionaw Framework.[34] This pubwication, awso known as de Microscope, was first devewoped in 2007, focusing onwy on Latin America and de Caribbean, but by 2009, dis report had become a gwobaw study.[35]

As yet dere are no studies dat indicate de scawe or distribution of 'informaw' microfinance organizations wike ROSCA's and informaw associations dat hewp peopwe manage costs wike weddings, funeraws and sickness. Numerous case studies have been pubwished, however, indicating dat dese organizations, which are generawwy designed and managed by poor peopwe demsewves wif wittwe outside hewp, operate in most countries in de devewoping worwd.[36]

Hewp can come in de form of more and better-qwawified staff, dus higher education is needed for microfinance institutions. This has begun in some universities, as Owiver Schmidt describes. Mind de management gap

In Canada and de US, microfinance organizations target marginawized popuwations unabwe to access mainstream bank financing. Cwose to 8% of Americans are unbanked, meaning around 9 miwwion are widout any kind of bank account or formaw financiaw services.[37] Most of dese institutions are structured as nonprofit organizations.[38] Microwoans in de U.S. context is defined as de extension of credit up to $50,000.[39] In Canada, CRA guidewines restrict microfinance woans to a maximum of $25,000.[40] The average microfinance woan size in de US is US$9,732, ten times de size of an average microfinance woan in devewoping countries (US$973).[38]

Whiwe aww microfinance institutions aim at increasing incomes and empwoyment, in devewoping countries de empowerment of women, improved nutrition and improved education of de borrower’s chiwdren are freqwentwy aims of microfinance institutions. In de US and Canada, aims of microfinance incwude de graduation of recipients from wewfare programs and an improvement in deir credit rating. In de US, microfinance has created jobs directwy and indirectwy, as 60% of borrowers were abwe to hire oders.[41] According to reports, every domestic microfinance woan creates 2.4 jobs.[42] These entrepreneurs provide wages dat are, on average, 25% higher dan minimum wage.[42] Smaww business woans eventuawwy awwow smaww business owners to make deir businesses deir primary source of income, wif 67% of de borrowers showing a significant increase in deir income as a resuwt of deir participation in certain micro-woan programs.[41] In addition, dese business owners are abwe to improve deir housing situation, 70% indicating deir housing has improved.[41] Uwtimatewy, many of de smaww business owners dat use sociaw funding are abwe to graduate from government funding.[41]

In de wate 1980s, microfinance institutions devewoped in de United States. They served wow-income and marginawized minority communities. By 2007, dere were 500 microfinance organizations operating in de US wif 200 wending capitaw.[38]

There were dree key factors dat triggered de growf in domestic microfinance:

Change in sociaw wewfare powicies and focus on economic devewopment and job creation at de macro wevew.

Encouragement of empwoyment, incwuding sewf-empwoyment, as a strategy for improving de wives of de poor.

The increase in de proportion of Latin American and Asian immigrants who came from societies where microenterprises are prevawent.

These factors incentivized de pubwic and private supports to have microwending activity in de United States.[38]

Microfinance in Canada took shape drough de devewopment of credit unions. These credit unions provided financiaw services to de Canadians who couwd not get access to traditionaw financiaw means. Two separate branches of credit unions devewoped in Canada to serve de financiawwy marginawized segment of de popuwation, uh-hah-hah-hah. Awphonse Desjardins introduced de estabwishment of savings and credit services in wate 1900 to de Quebecois who did not have financiaw access. Approximatewy 30 years water Fader Moses Coady introduced credit unions to Nova Scotia. These were de modews of de modern institutions stiww present in Canada today.[43]

Efforts to transfer specific microfinance innovations such as sowidarity wending from devewoping countries to Canada have met wif wittwe success.[44]

Formed in 2005 drough de merging of de Civiw Service Savings and Loan Society and de Metro Credit Union, Awterna is a financiaw awternative to Canadians. Their banking powicy is based on cooperative vawues and expert financiaw advising.

Access Community Capitaw Fund

Based in Toronto, Ontario, ACCESS is a Canadian charity dat hewps entrepreneurs widout cowwateraw or credit history find affordabwe smaww woans.

Montreaw Community Loan Fund

Created to hewp eradicate poverty, Montreaw Community Loan Fund provides accessibwe credit and technicaw support to entrepreneurs wif wow income or credit for start-ups or expansion of organizations dat cannot access traditionaw forms of credit.

Momentum

Using de community economic devewopment approach, Momentum offers opportunities to peopwe wiving in poverty in Cawgary. Momentum provides individuaws and famiwies who want to better deir financiaw situation take controw of finances, become computer witerate, secure empwoyment, borrow and repay woans for business, and purchase homes.

Founded in 1946, Vancity is now de wargest Engwish speaking credit union in Canada.

Limitations

Compwications specific to Canada incwude de need for woans of a substantiaw size in comparison to de ones typicawwy seen in many internationaw microfinance initiatives. Microfinance is awso wimited by de ruwes and wimitations surrounding money-wending. For exampwe, Canada Revenue Agency wimits de woans made in dese sort of transactions to a maximum of $25,000. As a resuwt, many peopwe wook to banks to provide dese woans. Awso, microfinance in Canada is driven by profit which, as a resuwt, faiws to advance de sociaw devewopment of community members. Widin marginawized or impoverished Canadian communities, banks may not be readiwy accessibwe to deposit or take out funds. These banks which wouwd have charged wittwe or no interest on smaww amounts of cash are repwaced by wending companies. Here, dese companies may charge extremewy warge interest rates to marginawized community members dus increasing de cycwe of poverty and profiting off of anoder’s woss (Ruderford, 2009).

In Canada, microfinancing competes wif pay-day woans institutions which take advantage of marginawized and wow-income individuaws by charging extremewy high, predatory interest rates. Communities wif wow sociaw capitaw often don't have de networks to impwement and support microfinance initiatives, weading to de prowiferation of pay day woan institutions. Pay day woan companies are unwike traditionaw microfinance in dat dey don't encourage cowwectivism and sociaw capitaw buiwding in wow income communities, however exist sowewy for profit.

Loans to poor peopwe by banks have many wimitations incwuding wack of security and high operating costs. As a resuwt, microfinance was devewoped as an awternative to provide woans to poor peopwe wif de goaw of creating financiaw incwusion and eqwawity.

Ewa Bhatt had initiated women's own SEWA Cooperative Bank in 1974 in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, perhaps one of de first modern day microfinance institution of its kind. Muhammad Yunus, a Nobew Prize winner, had introduced de concept of Micro-credit in Bangwadesh in de form of de "Grameen Bank". The Nationaw Bank for Agricuwture and Ruraw Devewopment (NABARD) wooked at severaw modews for offering financiaw services to de unbanked, especiawwy women, and decided to experiment wif a very different modew, now popuwarwy known as Sewf-hewp Groups (SHGs). In dis approach, a smaww group of women (and men) are abwe to form deir own wittwe mini bank, sewf-governed and managed, and create winks wif banks SHGs (Sewf-hewp groups), NGOs and banks. SHGs are often formed and nurtured by NGOs and onwy after accompwishing a certain wevew of maturity in terms of deir internaw drift and credit operations, dey are abwe to save, and awso seek credit from de banks. There is often an invowvement of an NGO, or a government agency during initiaw training and even after de SHG-Bank winkage. The SHG-Bank winkage programme, which has been in pwace since 1992 in India, has savings accounts wif 7.9 miwwion SHGs, wif 4.6 miwwion SHGs having outstanding woans, wif approximatewy $2 biwwion in saving wif banks, and $8.9 Biwwion is outstanding woans, making it one of de wargest microfinance program of its kind in de worwd (March 2016). It invowves commerciaw banks, regionaw ruraw banks (RRBs) and cooperative banks in its operations.

In 2013, Grameen Capitaw India was abwe to woan $144 miwwion to microfinance groups. In addition to Grameen Bank, Eqwitas has been anoder microfinance organization in Tamiw Nadu. The Souf and Western states are de ones attracting de greatest number of microfinance woans.[45]

Microfinance is defined as, financiaw services such as savings accounts, insurance funds and credit provided to poor and wow income cwients so as to hewp dem increase deir income, dereby improving deir standard of wiving.

In dis context de main features of microfinance are:

Loan given widout security

Loans to dose peopwe who wive bewow de poverty wine

Members of SHGs may benefit from micro finance

Maximum wimit of woan under micro finance Rs.25,000/-

Terms and conditions offered to poor peopwe are decided by NGOs

Microfinance is different from Microcredit- under de watter, smaww woans are given to de borrower but under microfinance awongside many oder financiaw services incwuding savings accounts and insurance. Therefore, microfinance has a wider concept dan microcredit.

In June 2014, CRISIL reweased its watest report on de Indian Microfinance Sector titwed "India's 25 Leading MFI's".[46] This wist is de most comprehensive and up to date overview of de microfinance sector in India and de different microfinance institutions operating in de sub-continent.

Many woan officers in India create emotionaw connection wif borrowers before woan reaches maturity by mentioning detaiws about borrowers’ personaw wife and famiwy and awso demonstrating affection in many different ways as a strategy to generate pressure during recovery.[47]

The Microfinance Network is a network of 20-25 of de worwd's wargest microfinance institutions, spread across Asia, Africa, de Middwe East, Europe and Latin America. Estabwished in 1993, de Microfinance Network provided support to members dat hewped steer many industry weaders to sustainabiwity, and profitabiwity in many of deir wargest markets. Today as de sector enters a new period of transition, wif de rise of digitaw financiaw technowogy dat increasingwy competes wif traditionaw microfinance institutions, de Microfinance Network provides a space to discuss opportunities and chawwenges dat arise from emerging technowogicaw innovations in incwusive finance. [48] The Microfinance Network convenes once a year. Members incwude Aw Majmoua, BRAC, BancoSow, Gentera, Kamurj, LAPO, and SOGESOL.

The Partnership for Responsibwe Financiaw, previouswy known as de Microfinance CEO Working Group, is a cowwaborative effort of weading internationaw organizations and deir CEOs active in de microfinance and incwusive finance space, incwuding direct microfinance practitioners, and microfinance funders. It is constituted of 10 members, incwuding Accion, Aga Khan Agency for Microfinance, BRAC, CARE USA, FINCA Impact Finance, Grameen Foundation, Opportunity Internationaw, Pro Mujer, Vision Fund Internationaw and Women's Worwd Banking. Harnessing de power of de CEOs and deir senior managers, de PRFI advocates for responsibwe financiaw services and seeks catawytic opportunities to accewerate financiaw access to de unserved. As part of dis focus, PRFI is responsibwe for setting up de Smart Campaign, in response to negative microfinance practices dat indicated de mistreatment of cwients in certain markets. The network is made up of de CEO working group, dat meet qwarterwy and severaw subcommittee working groups dedicated to communications, sociaw performance, digitaw financiaw services, and wegaw and human resources issues.

The European Microfinance Network was estabwished in response to many wegaw and powiticaw obstacwes affecting de microfinance sector in Europe. The Network is invowved in advocacy on a wide range of issues rewated to microfinance, micro-enterprises, sociaw and financiaw excwusion, sewf-empwoyment and empwoyment creation, uh-hah-hah-hah. Its main activity is de organisation of its annuaw conference, which has taken pwace each year since 2004. The EMN has a wide network of over 100 members.

The Africa Microfinance Network (AFMIN) is an association of microfinance networks in Africa resuwting from an initiative wed by African microfinance practitioners to create and/or strengden country-wevew microfinance networks for de purpose of estabwishing shared performance standards, institutionaw capacity and powicy change. AFMIN was formawwy waunched in November 2000 and has estabwished its Secretariat in Abidjan (Repubwic of Côte d’Ivoire), where AFMIN is wegawwy recognized as an internationaw Non-Governmentaw Organisation pursuant to Ivorian waws. Because of de powiticaw unrest in Côte d’Ivoire, AFMIN temporariwy rewocated its office to Cotonou in Benin, uh-hah-hah-hah.[49]

The microcredit movement dat began in de 1970s has emerged and morphed into a 'financiaw systems' approach for creating universaw financiaw incwusion, uh-hah-hah-hah. Whiwe Grameen modew of dewivering smaww credit achieved a great deaw, especiawwy in urban and near-urban areas and wif entrepreneuriaw famiwies, its progress in dewivering financiaw services in wess densewy popuwated ruraw areas was swow; creating de need for many and muwtipwe modews to emerge across de gwobe. The terms have evowved from Microcredit, to Microfinance, and now Financiaw Incwusion, uh-hah-hah-hah. Speciawized microfinance institutions (MFIs) continue to expand deir services, cowwaborating and competing wif banks, credit unions, mobiwe money, and oder informaw and formaw member owned institutions.

The new financiaw systems approach pragmaticawwy acknowwedges de richness of centuries of microfinance history and de immense diversity of institutions serving poor peopwe in devewoping and devewoped economies today. It is awso rooted in an increasing awareness of diversity of de financiaw service needs of de worwd’s poorest peopwe, and de diverse settings in which dey wive and work. It awso acknowwedges dat qwawity and rage of financiaw services are awso important for de banking system to achieve fuwwer and deeper financiaw incwusion, for aww. Centraw banks and mainstream banks are now more intimatewy engaging in de financiaw incwusion agenda dan ever before, dough it is a wong road, wif over 35-40% of worwds aduwts remaining outside formaw banking system, and many more remaining 'under-banked'. Advent of mobiwe phone based money management and digitaw finance is changing de scenario fast; dough 'sociaw-distance' between economicawwy poor/ sociaw marginawized and de banking system remain warge, unfortunatewy.

Informaw financiaw service providers

These incwude moneywenders, pawnbrokers, savings cowwectors, money-guards, ROSCAs, ASCAs and input suppwy shops. These continue deir services because dey know each oder weww and wive in de same community, dey understand each oder’s financiaw circumstances and can offer very fwexibwe, convenient and fast services. These services can awso be costwy and de choice of financiaw products wimited and very short-term. Informaw services dat invowve savings are awso risky; many peopwe wose deir money.

Member-owned organizations

These incwude sewf-hewp groups, Viwwage Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs), Credit Unions, CVECAs and a variety of oder members owned and governed informaw or formaw financiaw institutions. Informaw groups, wike deir more traditionaw cousins, are generawwy smaww and wocaw, which means dey have access to good knowwedge about each oder's financiaw circumstances and can offer convenience and fwexibiwity. Since dey are managed by poor peopwe, deir costs of operation are wow. Often, dey do not need reguwation and supervision, unwess dey grow in scawe and formawize demsewves by coming togeder to form II or III tier federations. If not prepared weww, dey can be 'captured' by a few infwuentiaw weaders, and run de risk of members wosing deir savings. Experience suggests dough dat dese informaw but highwy discipwined groups are very sustainabwe, and continue to exist even after 20–25 years. Formawization, as a Cooperative of Credit Union, can hewp create winks wif de banking system for more sophisticated financiaw products and additionaw capitaw for woans; but reqwires strong weadership and systems. These modews are highwy popuwar in many ruraw regions of countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America; and a pwatform for creating deeper financiaw incwusion, uh-hah-hah-hah.

In addition to commerciaw banks, dese incwude state banks, agricuwturaw devewopment banks, savings banks, ruraw banks and non-bank financiaw institutions. They are reguwated and supervised, offer a wider range of financiaw services, and controw a branch network dat can extend across de country and internationawwy. However, dey have proved rewuctant to adopt sociaw missions, and due to deir high costs of operation, often can't dewiver services to poor or remote popuwations. The increasing use of awternative data in credit scoring, such as trade credit is increasing commerciaw banks' interest in microfinance.[51]

Wif appropriate reguwation and supervision, each of dese institutionaw types can bring weverage to sowving de microfinance probwem. For exampwe, efforts are being made to wink sewf-hewp groups to commerciaw banks, to network member-owned organizations togeder to achieve economies of scawe and scope, and to support efforts by commerciaw banks to 'down-scawe' by integrating mobiwe banking and e-payment technowogies into deir extensive branch networks.

Brigit Hewms in her book 'Access for Aww: Buiwding Incwusive Financiaw Systems', distinguishes between four generaw categories of microfinance providers, and argues for a pro-active strategy of engagement wif aww of dem to hewp dem achieve de goaws of de microfinance movement.[52]

Due to de unbawanced emphasis on credit at de expense of microsavings, as weww as a desire to wink Western investors to de sector, peer-to-peer pwatforms have devewoped to expand de avaiwabiwity of microcredit drough individuaw wenders in de devewoped worwd. New pwatforms dat connect wenders to micro-entrepreneurs are emerging on de Web (peer-to-peer sponsors), for exampwe MYC4, Kiva, Zidisha, myELEN, Opportunity Internationaw and de Microwoan Foundation. Anoder Web-based microwender United Prosperity uses a variation on de usuaw microwending modew; wif United Prosperity de micro-wender provides a guarantee to a wocaw bank which den wends back doubwe dat amount to de micro-entrepreneur. In 2009, de US-based nonprofit Zidisha became de first peer-to-peer microwending pwatform to wink wenders and borrowers directwy across internationaw borders widout wocaw intermediaries.[53]

The vowume channewed drough Kiva's peer-to-peer pwatform is about $100 miwwion as of November 2009 (Kiva faciwitates approximatewy $5M in woans each monf). In comparison, de needs for microcredit are estimated about 250 bn USD as of end 2006.[54] Most experts agree dat dese funds must be sourced wocawwy in countries dat are originating microcredit, to reduce transaction costs and exchange rate risks.

There have been probwems wif discwosure on peer-to-peer sites, wif some reporting interest rates of borrowers using de fwat rate medodowogy instead of de famiwiar banking Annuaw Percentage Rate.[55] The use of fwat rates, which has been outwawed among reguwated financiaw institutions in devewoped countries, can confuse individuaw wenders into bewieving deir borrower is paying a wower interest rate dan, in fact, dey are.[citation needed] In de summer of 2017, widin de framework of de joint project of de Bank of Russia and Yandex, a speciaw check mark (a green circwe wif a tick and ‘Реестр ЦБ РФ’ (State MFO Register) text box) appeared in de search for Yandex system, informing de consumer dat de company's financiaw services are offered on de marked website, which has de status of a microfinance organization, uh-hah-hah-hah.[56]

There are currentwy a few sociaw interventions dat have been combined wif micro financing to increase awareness of HIV/AIDS. Such interventions wike de "Intervention wif Microfinance for AIDS and Gender Eqwity" (IMAGE) which incorporates microfinancing wif "The Sisters-for-Life" program a participatory program dat educates on different gender rowes, gender-based viowence, and HIV/AIDS infections to strengden de communication skiwws and weadership of women [57] "The Sisters-for-Life" program has two phases where phase one consists of ten one-hour training programs wif a faciwitator wif phase two consisting of identifying a weader amongst de group, train dem furder, and awwow dem to impwement an Action Pwan to deir respective centres.

Microfinance has awso been combined wif business education and wif oder packages of heawf interventions.[58] A project undertaken in Peru by Innovations for Poverty Action found dat dose borrowers randomwy sewected to receive financiaw training as part of deir borrowing group meetings had higher profits, awdough dere was not a reduction in "de proportion who reported having probwems in deir business".[59] Pro Mujer, a non-governmentaw organisation (NGO) wif operations in five Latin American countries, combines microfinance and heawdcare. This approach shows, dat microfinance can not onwy hewp businesses to prosper; it can awso foster human devewopment and sociaw security. Pro Mujer uses a "one-stop shop" approach, which means in one buiwding, de cwients find financiaw services, business training, empowerment advice and heawdcare services combined.[60]

Most criticisms of microfinance have actuawwy been criticisms of microcredit. Criticism focuses on de impact on poverty, de wevew of interest rates, high profits, overindebtedness and suicides. Oder criticism incwude de rowe of foreign donors and working conditions in companies affiwiated to microfinance institutions, particuwarwy in Bangwadesh.

The impact of microcredit is a subject of much controversy. Proponents state dat it reduces poverty drough higher empwoyment and higher incomes. This is expected to wead to improved nutrition and improved education of de borrowers' chiwdren, uh-hah-hah-hah. Some argue dat microcredit empowers women, uh-hah-hah-hah. In de US and Canada, it is argued dat microcredit hewps recipients to graduate from wewfare programs.

Critics say dat microcredit has not increased incomes, but has driven poor househowds into a debt trap, in some cases even weading to suicide. They add dat de money from woans is often used for durabwe consumer goods or consumption instead of being used for productive investments, dat it faiws to empower women, and dat it has not improved heawf or education, uh-hah-hah-hah. Moreover, as de access to micro-woans is widespread, borrowers tend to acqwire severaw woans from different companies, making it nearwy impossibwe to pay de debt back.[62] As a resuwt of such tragic events, microfinance institutions in India have agreed on setting an interest rate ceiwing of 15 percent.[63] This is important because microfinance woan recipients have a higher wevew of security in repaying de woans and a wower wevew of risk in faiwing to repay dem.

The avaiwabwe evidence indicates dat in many cases microcredit has faciwitated de creation and de growf of businesses. It has often generated sewf-empwoyment, but it has not necessariwy increased incomes after interest payments. In some cases it has driven borrowers into debt traps.[citation needed] There is no evidence dat microcredit has empowered women, uh-hah-hah-hah. In short, microcredit has achieved much wess dan what its proponents said it wouwd achieve, but its negative impacts have not been as drastic as some critics have argued. Microcredit is just one factor infwuencing de success of smaww businesses, whose success is infwuenced to a much warger extent by how much an economy or a particuwar market grows. For exampwe, wocaw competition in de area of wack of a domestic markets for certain goods can infwuence how successfuw smaww businesses who receive microcredit are.[citation needed]

Unintended conseqwences of microfinance incwude informaw intermediaton: That is, some entrepreneuriaw borrowers become informaw intermediaries between microfinance initiatives and poorer micro-entrepreneurs. Those who more easiwy qwawify for microfinance spwit woans into smawwer credit to even poorer borrowers. Informaw intermediation ranges from casuaw intermediaries at de good or benign end of de spectrum to 'woan sharks' at de professionaw and sometimes criminaw end of de spectrum.[64]

Mission drift refers to de phenomena drough which de MFIs or de micro finance institutions increasingwy try to cater to customers who are better off dan deir originaw customers, primariwy de poor famiwies. Roy Merswand and R. Øystein Strøm in deir research on mission drift suggest dat dis sewection bias can come not onwy drough an increase in de average woan size, which awwows for financiawwy stronger individuaws to get de woans, but awso drough de MFI's particuwar wending medodowogy, main market of operation, or even de gender bias as furder mission drift measures.[65] And as it may fowwow, dis sewective funding wouwd wead to wower risks and wower costs for de firm.

However, economists Beatriz Armendáriz and Ariane Szafarz suggests dat dis phenomenon is not driven by cost minimization awone. She suggests dat it happens because of de interpway between de company’s mission, de cost differentiaw between poor and unbanked weawdier cwients and region specific characteristics pertaining de heterogeneity of deir cwientewe.[66] But in eider way, dis probwem of sewective funding weads to an edicaw tradeoff where on one hand dere is an economic reason for de company to restrict its woans to onwy de individuaws who qwawify de standards, and on de oder hand dere is an edicaw responsibiwity to hewp de poor peopwe get out of poverty drough de provision of capitaw.

The rowe of donors has awso been qwestioned. CGAP recentwy commented dat "a warge proportion of de money dey spend is not effective, eider because it gets hung up in unsuccessfuw and often compwicated funding mechanisms (for exampwe, a government apex faciwity), or it goes to partners dat are not hewd accountabwe for performance. In some cases, poorwy conceived programs have retarded de devewopment of incwusive financiaw systems by distorting markets and dispwacing domestic commerciaw initiatives wif cheap or free money."[67]

There has awso been criticism of microwenders for not taking more responsibiwity for de working conditions of poor househowds, particuwarwy when borrowers become qwasi-wage wabourers, sewwing crafts or agricuwturaw produce drough an organization controwwed by de MFI. The desire of MFIs to hewp deir borrower diversify and increase deir incomes has sparked dis type of rewationship in severaw countries, most notabwy Bangwadesh, where hundreds of dousands of borrowers effectivewy work as wage wabourers for de marketing subsidiaries of Grameen Bank or BRAC. Critics maintain dat dere are few if any ruwes or standards in dese cases governing working hours, howidays, working conditions, safety or chiwd wabour, and few inspection regimes to correct abuses.[68] Some of dese concerns have been taken up by unions and sociawwy responsibwe investment advocates.